LAW FOR ALL

Anti corruption case = mere taint of powder to the hands and mere placing of cash under news paper does not proved the guilt of the accused who is not at all a competent authority to pass orders against the complainant =The law on the issue is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the Act 1988. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantive evidence in the case is not reliable,unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as a bribe. Mere receipt of the amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification. Hence, the burden rests on the accused to displace the statutory presumption raised under Section 20 of the Act 1988, by bringing on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as referred to in Section 7 of the Act 1988. While invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. However, before the accused is called upon to explain how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. The complainant is an interested and partisan witness concerned with the success of the trap and his evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness. In a proper case, the court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person. So far as the recovery is concerned, the respondent-accused took a plea that he only had the duty to serve the notice on the complainant with regard to the tax evasion done by him and was not the authority for making an assessment order. It was his official duty to serve upon the complainant a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The complainant came to his house and asked the respondent-accused to give him a glass of water as he had to take the medicine. He went inside the kitchen and came back with a glass of water and thereafter shook hands with the complainant and that is why when the hands of the respondent were washed, they turned pink. 9. The High Court also accepted the defence version made under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and recorded the findings that the possibility of Phenolphthalein powder appearing on the hands of the respondent-accused when he shook hands with the complainant cannot be ruled out. The High Court further took note of various subsequent developments that certain complaints were filed against him by the CBI having dis-proportionate assets.